March 20 witnessed a slew of lamentations over seven months of freedom for the still-not-dead "Lockerbie bomber." One was a New York Post opinion piece called "A Terrorist's Last(?) Laugh." If they'd waited 12 days, the piece would have more punch with the 58th birthday of "Abdul Ali al-Megrahi" on April 1.
The comments following (with the notable exception of "Logika") were typical Americana - why are we so weak, why is Scotland so oil-hungry, send in the Mossad, send in missile strikes, we're being pansies and letting terrorists walk all over us, letting the Scottish walk all over us, I'm angry about something... Then I registered and weighed in:
Caustic Logic 03/22/2010 3:48 PMI usually wind up getting the last word when I bother commenting somewhere. happily, not so here. Five days later, someone calling himself "Himself" fired back defensively:
Amazingly, I'm seeing something short of complete ignorance in these comments. Logika at least makes sense, and I have to wonder if we're related. People should be angered that Megrahi is still blamed, not alive. The real killers were never caught. The bomb did not come from Malta. Or Germany. It blew up 38 min. after leaving HEATHROW, as a Khreesat bomb loaded there would do. John Bedford saw it in its brown hardshell Samsonite case inside container 4041, right in the lower left corner where it blew up later. Megrahi could have nothing to do with that, since he was way down in Malta. The plus the other evidence being weak or fake proves the injustice of his release - he was released as guilty and sick, rather than innocent and sick.
Himself 03/27/2010 12:49 PM
Please ignore "Caustic Logic" or other armschair experts who dont know squat about this case and rely on other cranks with too much time on their hands. This is not a parlor game, where Adam whatzname wants people to add to his website claiming Megrahi was innocent. The man was found guilty by three senior scottish judges who heard all the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. This was upheld on appeal by five scottish appellate judges. Adam should be ashamed of his silly efforts and get a life.
I went to respond, something about compensating for lack of a life quite well. But then my comment didn't take, and in fact all eleven previous comments disappeared (at least on my end). For about a day as I wrote up a rant, it said "0 comments," and then they reappeared, minus my attempted reply. So, feeling content to let "Himself" have the last word there, I'd invite him to continue the discussion here. He seems familiar enough with the site.
"Please ignore "Caustic Logic" or other armschair experts who dont know squat about this case and rely on other cranks with too much time on their hands."
First, I'm one of the cranks with too much time, not reliant on anyone. Second, if you've seen the site, sir, you'll be quite aware that a lack of knowledge is not the problem here.
I note how Megrahi's conviction, and its upholding, are mentioned in the spot one would expect to see a counter-argument - this is how investigators like Mr. Marquise cover themselves, kicking and screaming "but the judges agreed! The juuuuudges!" It's true. The first set were handed a stacked deck of dubious evidence, and their own lapses of reasoning are astounding (and documented, in real-time transcripts I have). The second set of judges, it seems, refused to question the first set. They heard contrary evidence, like the Heathrow break-in, but dismissed it with endless speculation since, circularly, "no feature of the additional evidence was consistent with the promotion of the plot by the Libyan secret service." [See: Appeal Court Dismissal of the Heathrow Theory]
So I know too little, smart man? Why don't you pop in here with comments and explain what I'm missing. For example, I used Bedford's report of the bomb bag(s) in the container; can you help me see why that's not a major clue? Did both of these brown hardshell cases get moved across the container, found unharmed, and reconciled with a passenger and explained away with actual reasoning? You don't know? Well why not? The Crown people had every chance to dismiss this theory by presenting the intact Bedford bags but have not done so. It's almost as if they just disappeared, or blew into small pieces, isn't it?
Can you better explain the forensics that went into deciding the bomb had to have come off of PA103A? Provide one iota of evidence that Megrahi had a case like that seen by Bedford, or that such a bag was ever on Malta or in Germany that day. Only in London is it seen and there in a matching set placed in the most deadly spot of the container. Do you believe there was in fact a THIRD such bag was later placed and blew up?
There are many other questions I could ask, but London origin is my project at the moment. Thanks for taking the time t explain what the hell you're talking about.